Quantcast
Faith

Dutchman launches life-sized replica of Noah's Ark

Comments

Return To Article
  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 5:55 p.m.

    Where are the unicorns and dinosaurs? Where did he find the gopher wood?

    Editing nitpick: I question the repeated use of the word "replica" in the online photo captions in reference to the boat (it's OK for the giraffe). To have a replica, you first must know the construction of the original. Other than some crude overall dimensions, we don't have that. "Replica" used without qualification also implies that the original actually existed, which is doubtful. "Model," as used in the body of the story, is more acceptable.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 6:34 p.m.

    I think this chap should put, say, a pair of each of the largest 150 species of land animal, sufficient food and fresh water, and put out to sea for 40 days. Anybody who's ever fed 300 head of cows for a month and a half of winter knows what the haystack looked like before, and the manure pile after. I guess it isn't practical for this guy to do this experiement, and the SPCA would be all over it. Noah, I guess, had it easy that way. My point is that, whenever someone like this guy or the creationist guys on the religious tv channel try to make this work, they have to take some serious leaps away from logic and reason and try to cover it up with faith, parables and speculation. If that's what supports your belief that the events surrounding the ark occurred as described, that's fine. But this construction, in and of itself, only offers proof to me that the Noahic story is not literally true, and the explanations offered are flights of fancy at best.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 12, 2012 5:25 a.m.

    Noah's Ark is a fine story, but, for those who accept the bible as literal word, this may be an wake-up call.

  • TruthTalker Crystal River, FL
    Dec. 12, 2012 6:15 a.m.

    I think this is very interesting. It is sad to see some of the religious bigotry in the comments. This guy undertakes such a big project, using a scientific method to create something clearly outlined in the Bible. Whether a person "believes" the Biblical account or clearly "disbelieves" it is not the issue. What this man has done is a scientific approach to examining something in the Bible. It involves measurements and production of it. This is useful, regardless of which belief system you hold about the story of Noah.

    @Lagomorph: The term "model" has been used many times, always in regards to a small boat one can hold in their hands. Replica is more appropriate because it implies exact scale. How good a replica it is might be debated, but replica it is.

    @Hutterite: You fail to realize that many of these creationists have taken more of a scientific approach than you have. They have done more measurements and math in regards to examining the possibility, not taking leaps of "faith" as you falsely claim. You are the one who takes leaps of speculation with sloppy characterizations rather than a clear mathematical falsification.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 8:24 a.m.

    @ Lagomorph the original actually existed, which is doubtful. (1Peter 3:20) “to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of ‘Noah’ while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were Saved through water.”

    RE: Hutterite the Noahic story is not literally true:” (Hebrews 11:7) By Faith ’Noah’, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.”

    .(2 Peter 2:5 NLT)And God did not spare the ancient world--except for’ Noah ’and the seven others in his family. Noah warned the world of God's righteous judgment. So God protected Noah when he destroyed the world of ungodly people with a vast flood.

    O.T. believers were saved by faith in God just as the N.T. believers..

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 10:21 a.m.

    I'm sorry, but the whole idea is preposterous.

    A global flood that killed everyone except Noah and his family? Seriously? You really believe God is the greatest mass murderer of all time?

    How many toddlers and pregnant women were on Earth during the "flood?" All those innocents killed because, why?

    And you want to celebrate that global act of pure evil by making a ridiculous huge boat that is demonstrably incapable of doing anything close to what the myth says it did?

    At what point does reality ever enter into your thought processes?

  • jasonp SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 10:27 a.m.

    @ TruthTalker: I re-read the comments and can't seem to find the religious bigotry you refer to. Is it bigotry to make one's disbelief known? Or if I express skepticism that this ark could actually hold every species of animal and food to feed them? Is that what bigotry means to you?

  • Mona Beaverton, OR
    Dec. 12, 2012 11:16 a.m.

    What an amazing, remarkable accomplishment! This would be something to see, no matter what you think of the Biblical ark.

  • dmyers PC, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 11:57 a.m.

    One of the most interesting things that are found all over the world are...fossils. They are created because a catastrophic event quickly covers the animals/plants etc. that become fossils.(event like world wide flood)The ark is more than large enough to house any and all types of land animals. The animals could have been new borns, or for bird/reptiles they could have been eggs. and for specie types you would only need say one pair of horses,not every breed of horse(ponies, draft horses, zebra's, etc. could all be selectively breed from 2 standard horses). The best selling book every year is the Bible,and it has yet to be credibly discredited.

  • raybies Layton, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 12:09 p.m.

    Wow. What a great reason to go see Holland, now! Hehehe. I've friends there, I should bug them about going to see it. That's quite a feat of engineering even with all our current technology. Looks like a fun and reflective creation--I like the creator's attitude quoted in the article about the whole thing--to get us to think about our purpose in life. Good for him!

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 1:46 p.m.

    @Blue," All those innocents killed because, why?

    Genesis 4:1–16:7 we read of a creation that becomes increasingly corrupt. Murder and wickedness of all kinds abound, leading God to send a flood that destroys all life, except for faithful Noah and representatives of the animal kingdom (6:8–8:19). God saves a remnant of His creation because of His great mercy. But it is only a remnant. Though we can be confident of God’s great grace, we should never think that He will allow sin to go unpunished.

    In Genesis 8:20–9:17 ,the Noahic covenant , like the covenant made with Adam, is a covenant made with all of humanity; it is made at the “re-creation” of the earth, at the new beginning for the earth after the flood. and God promises never again to destroy the earth by means of a flood. While the earth remains.

    (Genesis 9:12-13). Just as circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant, the ‘Rainbow’ is the sign of the Noahic Covenant.

    Jesus’s Blood is the sign of the N.T.(Covenant)(MT: 26:28)

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 1:53 p.m.

    @TruthTalker

    The scientific process isn't just measuring and building. That's engineering.

    Also, this is just a full-scale model, as it doesn't appear to be sea-worthy.

    Science is about REPEATABLE results. This would involve him building a boat to specification that is capable of floating for a year, cable of withstanding the "deluge", and capable of accommodating all necessary species and their food for a year.

    From what I can tell, what we have is a big, wooden museum.

    [You fail to realize that many of these creationists have taken more of a scientific approach than you have.]

    Please stop using "scientific method/approach/process" until you really understand what it means. From what it sounds like, you seem to think that somebody is engaged in scientific research the moment they perform measurements and math.

    In trying to conform 100% to the biblical record, creationists have come up with ideas that include: 1) A massive sub-crustal ocean. 2) An ecosystem sustained by morning dew/mist (but without any refraction of light/rainbows), rather than rain. 3) All the water on Mars and Mercury originating from the excess Earth flood water.

    Not Scientific...

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 2:04 p.m.

    Disneyland created many "replicas" of fictional, fantasy lands, buildings, and amusements.

    This is no different.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    Dec. 12, 2012 4:01 p.m.

    @ "s scientist": Disneyland also created "replicas" of working things (such as the monorail). This may be no different.

    I find myself, as a believing Latter-day Saint, in a peculiar position here. On the one hand I am mocked for believing in Noah and the ark (which I do) based on the assumption that I share standard Catholic and Protestant ideas of the Bible (I don't), or that I am a creationist (I am not--at least not in the sense it is usually understood--ie, ex nihilo creation "supported" by science), or that I reject science (I don't).

    @ Blue: Are you objecting to the idea that God exists, or that He appears to have done something you disagree with? If God tells people a flood is coming, and that they should get out of the way of the flood, then provides a way for them to save themselves from the flood, but they ignore Him and the flood comes, did He kill them or did the flood? You appear to believe that the One who warned everyone and provided a method for their rescue is somehow guilty of their deaths because they ignored Him.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 4:27 p.m.

    @Jeff

    God is at fault because he caused the flood. Following your logic, an abusive husband isn't at fault for beating his wife if he warns he first. She was warned, he provided a method of rescue (not making him mad), but she ignored him.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 6:07 p.m.

    dmyers: " ...and for specie types you would only need say one pair of horses,not every breed of horse..."

    Let's consider the ramifications of this space-saving strategy (conservation of "kinds" rather than all species), putting aside for the moment that no one has provided satisfactory criteria for determining what constitutes a Biblical kind (baramin) biologically. Take the cat kind. Assume the archetypal (arketypal?) cat was on the ark. The flood was 2348 BCE by creationist accounting. We know that cats in their modern form existed during the Egyptian civilizations and definitely by Roman times (where they were fed martyrs in the arenas). Are you suggesting that the many modern cat species differentiated from the archetype and distributed themselves across the planet (including islands) in one or two millenia? Lions, tigers, leopards, ocelots, jaguars, lynx, bobcat, cougars, cheetahs, Manx, and shorthairs alike all appeared rapidly, and yet have shown remarkable stasis since. That is amazing. Please propose a testable hypothesis that might be used to test this idea (hint: think genetic bottleneck). Explain how a tiger might evolve from an arkekitty in 1000 years, but stay unchanged for 4000 more. What kinds of selection pressures are at play?

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 7:53 p.m.

    Jeff: "Are you objecting to the idea that God exists, or that He appears to have done something you disagree with?"

    I object because this credulous article describes the boat as a "life-sized replica" of something that never existed.

    How do I know it never existed? Because the myth of Noah's flood is just that - a myth. Seriously, it really necessary to discuss the physics, zoology, hydrology, geology, etc. that make it clear that the "flood" can only be a fiction?

    Isn't it appropriate to observe that the act of drowning every man, woman and child on Earth (except Noah's family) would be an act of cruelty and mass murder that is antithetical to a "loving" deity?

    Look, I only wandered into this section because the story was on the main page. I get it that this is the Faith section, and that religion feels entitled to remove itself of the world of reality.

    If this were an article about some kind of morality lesson based on the _story_ of the flood - - then knock yourselves out.

    But to represent Noah's flood as historical is just plain ridiculous and deserves to be criticized as such.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    Dec. 12, 2012 8:11 p.m.

    @ Mukkake: I find it ironic that you want to take the Biblical story literally in the sense that God says he is "sending the rain" (I don't--I consider that figurative language), but you seem to feel that creationists, who take it literally, are not right in the head. (I have good friends who are creationists, and I don't want to offend them, but some of the things you suggest as being a stretch of the truth, I agree with you on.)

    Your metaphor of the wife beater is an interesting one, and, if you'll excuse me, doesn't coincide with my personal knowledge of God. Your metaphor suggests that God could simply have stopped the rains and saved everyone; because He didn't do so, He was as cruel and evil as a wife beater.

    It's more along the lines of dam engineers reminding people downstream that there will be an opening of the dam floodgates at a certain time to flush the reservoir and restore the riverbank below; people need to be out of the way on that date, or they will be in danger.

    I'm not a Bible literalist; are you?

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    Dec. 12, 2012 8:34 p.m.

    @ Blue: Your reasoning is circular. I assume that you disbelieve in Noah and the Ark because you value reasoning, so it might be important to you to evaluate your reasoning.

    You say that you "know [Noah and the flood] never existed...because the myth of Noah's flood is just that - a myth." When I print it, I hope you see that it is circular reasoning. You don't believe it because a myth is a myth. You "know" it never existed--not because you have evidence, but because it is a myth.

    What you might mean is that "the flood as explained by previous believers does not correspond with what we know about 'physics, zoology, hydrology, geology, etc.'" I am OK with that. I can see that reasoning.

    But there is plenty of evidence in world literature that a large flood occurred that destroyed large numbers of people. (See the Popol Vuh, for example.) Even if I weren't a believer, I would be hard pressed to insist that I "knew" that such a flood never happened. The replica in the article gives a visual of both the possibilities and impossibilities of how the story is commonly understood.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 9:00 p.m.

    [ Your metaphor suggests that God could simply have stopped the rains and saved everyone; because He didn't do so, He was as cruel and evil as a wife beater.]

    Worse, I would argue.

    [It's more along the lines of dam engineers reminding people downstream that there will be an opening of the dam floodgates at a certain time to flush the reservoir and restore the riverbank below; people need to be out of the way on that date, or they will be in danger.]

    Nobody has ever claimed that dam engineers are all powerful and benevolent. In most jurisdictions, if dam engineers knew somebody was still in the path of the dam, they wouldn't open the gates. An "all-powerful", "all-knowing" God can't claim helplessness or ignorance and is aware of and in control of such actions.

    [I'm not a Bible literalist; are you?]

    Absolutely, what other option is there? To pick and choose, like a buffet? Sounds convenient.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 9:07 p.m.

    Jeff,

    Sure, flood mythologies extend beyond the Bible. That's the whole point. The tale of Noah's flood is a re-hash of the ancient Greek story of Deucalion. It predates the tale of Noah, describes it nearly identically - it just has Zeus committing mass murder.

    "World literature" is not where geologists and zoologists go to understand the fictional nature of Noah's flood. Evidence for a global flood of 6,000 or so years ago would be found in rock strata, sea beds, and the types and diversification, both genetically and geographically, of species. Such real-world evidence simply does not exist.

    Go talk to any member of the BYU's geology faculty and ask them if they've found physical evidence of a global flood.

    Go talk to any member of BYU's zoology faculty and ask them if what we know of life on Earth today in any way remotely supports the idea of a global flood 6,000 years ago.

    My reasoning is not circular. Noah's flood is a myth because there is zero evidence for it being anything other than a myth.

    A religious fable? Fine - it's your religion, have fun.

    But it's not real.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Dec. 12, 2012 10:13 p.m.

    If we view death as only a stepping stone along our eternal path and growing up in an evil world would facilitate problems that could ruin our eternal futures, then death would be preferable option even for the very young.

    God then would not be cruel for cleansing the earth, but kind. Note that only God could make such judgments of entire populations.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    Dec. 13, 2012 12:01 a.m.

    @ Mukkake: As with all metaphors, there are problems when you want to go too far.

    The truth about God is that He is kind and benevolent. He is perfectly just and perfectly merciful. He loves all of us.

    I do not write the above as a statement of faith or wishful thinking, but as a statement of fact, one that I know from personal experience (I confess, I extrapolate from my experience: ie, God loves me and everyone I know, therefore God loves all His children) and from frequent personal contact with Him. There is no dispute or argument of this point. For that reason, I would submit that you are simply wrong in your characterization of God's motives in the flood.

    There are any number of possible approaches to the Bible--literalism being one of them. Your rhetorical question suggesting that that is the only possible approach suggests a certain closed-mindedness on your part, which fits the nature of your attempt to characterize God as something bad.

    It reminds me of a frequent argument I hear from atheist friends of mine: "I don't believe in God because I don't like Him." Illogical and contradictory.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 8:41 a.m.

    Jeff:
    [There is no dispute or argument of this point. For that reason, I would submit that you are simply wrong in your characterization of God's motives in the flood.]

    But I can, and do, reject the validity/interpretation of your experience (just as any religious person rejects the validity/interpretation of contradictory religious experiences). That's the problem with subjective "evidence", we can dismiss it without further argument. In this day and age, physical evidence is taken more seriously than witness testimonies.

    My characterizations were all hypothetical, as I take the Bible literally, but not seriously.

    [There are any number of possible approaches to the Bible--literalism being one of them.]

    It's the only practical approach for discussion, otherwise we would have to go line by line and have you tell me what your opinion on every book, chapter, verse, sentence, and word is.

    [Your rhetorical question suggesting that that is the only possible approach suggests a certain closed-mindedness on your part,]

    I generally find discussions of "closed/open-mindedness" pointless. It generally means that you don't think I've given enough time to your argument. Granted; I value my time.